Talk:Albania during the Balkan Wars

Second sentence

Second sentence is already incorrect. There are several nations on Balkan peninsula that had no state. At that time Croatians and slovenians had no state. Macedonians had no state. Cincar and Bunjevci even today are without state. Article is also full pov pushing.--SLAK (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. --Sulmues _talk 18:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Page title

Title is incorrect. Reader could think that only Serbia was occupying Albania, if there were a occupation. Title of the page should be "Occupation of Albanian 1912-13". Serbia was not the only one who was occupying Albania. What was difference betweet Serbian, Greek or Montenegrian occupation? --Alexmilt (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That is  Fixed by now. --Sulmues _talk 18:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. There were parts of territory that now belongs to Albania, that were under control of Ottoman empire after 28. November 1912, like Shkodra and big region with Valona and Berat and their sourounding area. If Albania really existed from 28. November 1912, before Treaty of London (1913) was signed, then Ottoman empire occupied Albania as well, and it should be added to the list of countries that occupied Albania.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Greek occupation of Albania

User:Athenean has removed referenced content without prior discussion:

"Greek Occupation of Southern Albania lasted from December 1912 to March 1914. Despite the Albanian declaration of neutrality in the Balkan War, the Greek Navy on 4 December 1912 shelled the unfortified city of Vlora."

What is the exact problem with this paragraph? --Mladifilozof (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason was that the original source used, Edwin Jacques, is highly partisan and moreover not a historian, therefore he should not be used. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I now note that Jacques has been replaced by Vickers, yet the same exact text was kept. However, Vickers doesn't say anything about the Greeks bombarding Vlore. Also, Vickers says "though the Greeks" remained neutral until 1917", not that Albania remained neutral. The source is misused. Athenean (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Article should be renamed

Albania's borders were drawn December 1913. Considering this the Balkan countries were not in Albanian territory by Ottoman. The current title is misleading, it would be appropriate to name it: Albanian during Balkan Wars. Can someone assist me with this?CrazyMartini (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi CrazyMartini. I fully agree with you over the issue you raise and I have actually looked at this quite recently. It is very difficult for a variety of reasons; the main one is that information on "Albania" is inconclusive. In a technical sense, you are right: Serbia, Montenegro and Greece were merely endeavouring to incorporate the Rumelian regions from which the Ottomans were driven out into their respecive states. The difficulty arises where we introduce the name Albania. It is a fact that ethnic Albanian anti-Ottomans too staged a campaign within lands where they resided and they did this not allied to the Balkan League. To thad end, their opponents were both the Ottomans and the Balkan League. Then there is the fact that an autonomous principality of Albania had come into existence and one that was accepted by the Porte. This I believe happened in October 1912. Now not that this warrants the usage "occupation", Albania (in its current form and including the Vilayet of Kosovo) was declared independent by the Provisional Government of Albania in November of 1912. The question is, when was Albania recognised? This information is nowhere on Wikipedia, I raised the issue here and as you can see, no reply. It leaves one more matter, which is that this article is sourced, and right or wrong, those sources refer to an occupation of Albania so its usage is in that small way acceptable. It is one huge gray area. Evlekis (Евлекис) 02:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

This has been no way to conduct a civilised discussion, nor any sensible way to close one. It is clearly not done to close a discussion in which one has commented, nor should someone who was involved produce a compromise like a rabbit from a hat. Having said that, Petri Krohn's other comments are quite appropriate. I'd suggest a rerun of the discussion. Put aside nationalism and look at what the subject might be called in any other encyclopedia. Returning this article to the original, pre-discussion name is certainly not intended as an endorsement of that name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am closing this discussion as a neutral outsider invited here on the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard. As the arguments demonstrate, the old title is unacceptable under the Wikipedia central principal of neutral point-of-view; it precludes the creation of a neutral article. The suggested alternative has not reached a consensus. There is also evidence, that a state of military occupation existed. As a compromise In am moving this to Occupation of Ottoman Albania. Please do not try to undo this unilaterally. If you believe that you can come to a consensus on a better name, start a new discussion.

The discussion has been dominated by national and ethnic POV pushers. If you continue to edit Wikipedia with such attitudes, you will face administrator action or arbitration, meaning topic bans and indefinite blocks or bans. To save you from the temptation of having yourself immediately banned or blocked, I have salted the redirect at Occupation of Albania (1912–1913). Petri Krohn (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Since, Petri Krohn's initiative has been reverted, we are again at the starting point and I have dearchived the discussion: However, it would be better to continue the discussion here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#A_summary_that_may_help.Alexikoua (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Occupation of Albania (1912–1913) → Albania during the Balkan Wars —We have a major historical inconsistency: the title is 'Occupation of Albania', but during this period (1912-1913) the territories that were under the control of the Balkan League were de jure still part of the Ottoman Empire. That's because the borders of Albania were established by the Protocol of Florence [1] at December 19, 1913 (end of 1913), when the Balkan Wars ended [2] [3] [4] [5] [6][7]][[8]. I believe the title: Albania during the Balkan Wars is much correct. Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I favour your proposal Alexikoua, and not for any reason of anti-Albanian sentiment. I presume we can have the vote of CrazyMartini as well. As for your sources, just one will suffice in the modification of the Albania article itself, now applicable since you have this information. Albania is declared in 1912 (defining itself as including the then larger Kosovo), its recognition however comes in 1913 after Greek, Serbian and Montenegrin borders are established, falling into place for Albania's inception as a principality the following year. Can I ask that we allow time for replies, particularly if anyone wishes to defend the current title. Evlekis (Евлекис) 01:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Off course it's not about sentiments, the term occupation applies to occupation of hostile territories: these territories were de jure Ottoman. 'Occupation of Albania' is misleading since it claims that it was a state of war between the Balkan League and Albania, or at least Albania was the legitimate owner of the territories before the establishement of its border.Alexikoua (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Strong oppose: The Albanian Declaration of Independence in 28 November 1928 declared an Independent Albania inclusive of Kosovo, Chameria and also Oher, Struga, Debar and Yanina. It is sufficient for this just to see what regions were representing the founding fathers in the Delegates section. After the declaration of independence Albania was occupied. The borders were decided outside of Albania as a result of a war in which Albania had not participated, because it didn't even have an army to do so. Those borders shrunk the natural borders of the Albanian people to today's Albania as a result of the expansionism of invading armies. This article shows how Albania was occupied in the Balkan Wars. Moving the article or merging this article would just bring the POV that Albania was an active participant in the Balkan Wars, which it wasn't. It was an occupied country, where its neighbors tried to suck away pieces of territory as soon as the Albanians had declared themselves independent from the Ottoman Empire: in fact the above 6 regions/cities are not currently part of Albania, because they were invaded and the Protocol of Florence decided to award Greece and Yugoslavia with those lands. Making a de jure - de facto point for international law shows just lack of understanding of international law, which consists of de facto situations, not de jure, especially in 1912-1913. For the above reasons this article should stay as it is. --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

28 November 1928? Decleration of what? I have the feeling you are out of topic, we are talking about internationally recognized borders not irredentist dreams. Before December 1913 (Protocol of Florence) the borders of Albania were not established and therefore occupation of Albania was virtually imposible. That's very easy to understand.Alexikoua (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)7

According to this utterly inane line of argumentation, Albania is still under occupation, as parts of Chameria and "Janina" are still under Greek occupation. Athenean (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sulmues for replying. I have to say however that as Alexikoua has pointed out, the first recognition of an Albanian international sovereign entity was in late 1913. Upon its inauguration, the present armies of Montenegro, Serbia and Greece agreed to withdraw. To that end, the only "occupation of Albania" was the presence of all non-Ottoman armies on the province that the Ottomans are purported to have recognised on their own territory. Apart from that, it is ludicrous to imply that the Montenegrin military presence in Pljevlja (then Kosovo) and the Serbian presence in Prijepolje (also Kosovo) were part of an "Occupation of Albania". We all know the contents of what happened, but it is misleading and pandering to POVs when we consider an attempt to annex a territory by one army as "the occupation of another land" when that "land" is only considered independent in that name by a unilaterally acting institution from within it. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus if we call it Albania during the Balkan Wars, we are accepting atleast the modern concept of Albania and including it in the title. If we wanted to be outright anti-Albanian, we could move the page to something that implies an attempt by Greeks and Serbs to retake their own territories, or refer to it as a campaign in Western Rumelia or something else pathetic that ignores the essential Albanian people that we both realise. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What irredentist dreams are you guys talking about? All those areas that I mentioned were part of the Ottoman Empire that went to states other than Albania. Irredentist versus the Ottoman Empire? Then all of your states were irredentist. Albania didn't start to be a state from the Protocol of Florence onward, it started on November 28 1912. International recognition has nothing to do with when a country starts to exist. --Sulmues ^(talk) 00:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I fear, Sulmues, this is where we clash. Recognition is everything to do with it. Apart from the fact that the Balkan League allies (less Bulgaria) were present in modern-day Albania before it was declared independent, the allies believed they were establishing their authority as a means of expelling the previous overlord, the Ottoman Empire. With that, they never ackowledge either of the two key words in the concept, neither Albania nor occupation. Think about it, when an occupation takes place, it is usually known by the occupier itself that its presence on the terrain is not ultimately to annex the land but to oversee administration in a way that will defend its interests. The U.S has always known Iraq and Afghanistan to be independent despite American presence in each; Israel has never published a map that presents Golan Heights to be within it, or the south of the Lebanon, but these places have and have had an involuntary ongoing Israeli military presence. Closer to home, if indeed a unilateral declaration of independence warrants the naming of such a page, then we need only recall Kosovo's original declaration of independence in 1990 and how it was seen in the eyes of Albania until the 1999 handover to the UN. We can say that the police and army loyal to Belgrade were an occupying power in an article called Occupation of the Republic of Kosova 1990-99. Evlekis (Евлекис) 02:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A country is independent when de facto is independent, not when recognitions occur. Show me one single source of information that a country starts to exist when it's recognized. The United States of America started to exist in July 4th 1776, with the declaration of independence, not on September 3, 1783 when it was recognized. In fact we do not learn in history the start of the United States as a country when the United Kingdom recognized it, but when the Americans decided to say "We're independent". The Albanians are no different. The comparison of the United States going to Iraq btw is completely irrelevant and impertinent, not to mention the Israel situation. --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

True. But when accusations are made against other states, more factors have to come into account, and Albania's territory was de facto everything that present parties wanted it to be. De jure however, it was Ottoman; the Ottomans fled the onslaught of local armies and that made the entire region abandoned by the Ottomas Res nullius. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is a similar case to several other articles, "Albania under the Byzantine/Serbian/Ottoman Empire" etc. "Albania" of course did exist as a concept, whether in ethnic or geographical terms (at least to modern eyes), but in all these cases, what is meant is "history of the territory now covered by the modern Albanian state when ruled by the Byzantines/Serbs/Ottomans". Given the legally grey area that Albania found itself in during the Balkan Wars, the proposed title is both neutral and descriptive, indeed far more so than the present one. Albania as a state-in-development was certainly a factor in the Balkan Wars: for instance, both Greeks and Serbs made haste to conquer territory lest it be assigned to Albania. Constantine ✍ 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support The proposed title is far more neutral and is in line with other similar articles. There also was no Albania as a state in 1912, so it couldn't have been "occupied". Athenean (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - to declare an official position. My points have been given above, but I fear that this can be yet another example of national interest promotion. It would be the Greeks and Serbs on one side against Albanians, and I can draw this article to the attention of a great many Albanians; as I am none of the mentioned, I hope to count as neutral. To Cplakidas, it wasn't "conquest", not from the point of view of the hopeful kingdoms. To them, they were freeing a people from Ottoman subjugation. Conquest is the game played by old empires that ventured into lands remote from their hub. Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose both titles and start a proper move request otherwise users who aren't involved won't notice it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - First title was Serbian Occupation of Albania, and it was created by user Mladifilozof, who is regarded as pov and non neutral on few wiki projects. Proposed title is far more neutral and encyclopedic that this one. Albania existed only as a concept in those time, so occupation is out of question, and proposition is by that quite good solution. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sulmues. Btw Alexikoua, for future reference see WP:RM (as no one but us involved editors will see it). Cheers. — Kedaditalk 19:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kedadi. I've informed the related wikprojects (Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Greece) Alexikoua (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexi, you still need to notify WP:Bulgaria, because Bulgaria was involved in the Balkan war, and also WP:Macedonia and WP:Kosovo which are the WikiProjects covering countries that used to be part of the Kingdom of Serbia. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

They are irrelevant with the events described in the article. But if you find it essential, feel free to post msgs there.Alexikoua (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - the country might not have been recognised but it was controlled by the albanians, and according to Wikipedia : Military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army, or belligerent (which in this case are the albanians). you may argue that belligerent status is given only to recognised sovereign states, however according to "Belligerent" it was also given to the Confederate States of America (even though not recognised), it also says that "belligerency is the status of two or more conflicting entities (generally, but not always, recognised sovereign states) --Cradel (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, well, it is arguable whether the Albanian government, such as it was, was even a belligerent. The events described here took place in a legal vacuum, on nominally Ottoman territory, which was occupied or claimed by Greeks, Serbs, and the Albanian provisional government. Since Albania had no definite and recognized borders (neither as a geographic nor as an administrative/national entity) at the time, "occupation" is a bit odd. For one, it represents a logical fallacy: it retroactively applies the borders of the Albanian state (which were settled after the Balkan Wars) to argue for occupation in a legal sense, even though at the time, the nascent Albanian state had never held any authority over exactly these "occupied" areas. For the other, as is evident from the discussion above, its terminology essentially adopts the POV of only one involved party, viz. the Albanians. To the Serbs and Greeks, this was "liberating" territories from the Ottomans. Even if we discard all the legalistic trivialities about belligerence however, the proposed title is both accurate and far more inclusive: essentially "history of Albania during the Balkan Wars", not just the narrow aspects of military occupation. IMO it covers the subject better (and in a more neutral fashion, as "occupation" is obviously regarded a loaded term), and has the potential to become an article of wider scope, rather than just listing the territories occupied and the relevant dates. Constantine ✍ 16:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

suppose we agree to that title, how would you then write the article? you can't say srb/gre forces marched or attacked albanian (or "albanian inhabited") lands fighting against the albanians (that is occupation) but you can't say liberated the lands either for quite obvious reasons. If you avoid that and simply say "the army entered the lands", you cannot avoid the resistance against it (which was "the albanians"), and if you do mention that they protected their lands (the lands which were inhabited by them and which they considered as being under the authority of the albanian government), you are implying that they are belligerents in an armed conflict, hence they were occupied. If it would have been a case of liberation, the inhabitants would have rebelled against the occupiers (ottoman empire) with the intention to join a specific state (serbia, greece), so what happened here ?.

It would be pointless to discuss what is the legal term for what happened, but de facto, it was an occupation (from conflicting entities to unwillingness (of the majority) to join a specific entity, it's all there). If an army considers it is liberating a territory, does that make it liberation? I don't see how this could have been liberation either factually or juridically . Anyway, I would accept the change of the title (I admit it is the mos neutral) if you can tell me how you could change the article so as not to imply occupation and yet be neutral and factual--Cradel (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that nowhere should the controversial term "liberated" be used, it is one-sided and inappropriate. These were Ottoman territories that various entities had wished to divide and annex. Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree too. Obviously an article 'Albania during the Balkan Wars' should includ the history of the region of that period. As I see we need an additional 'Provisional Government of Albania' section and the structure will be ok.Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As Alexis says, and as is typical for such articles, we define a period in time, and write about it. We need a background section (i.e. some brief coverage of the wider Balkan situation as well as the specifically Albanian developments in the years prior to the wars), then a division by period or subject. Suggested topics might be, Outbreak of the war, how the war was regarded by the Albanians, the Declaration of Independence and reactions to it, the military operations in what now constitutes Albanian soil, the military occupation, internal political disputes, etc. There are many things to cover. We might even consider extending our purview until 1914 and the outbreak of the First Balkan War...Constantine ✍ 09:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

the whole point of this article is the occupation, if there wasn't an occupation there would be no need for this article. If you ignore the occupation there is so little to write about that this article should be deleted. That is quite probably what is going to happen after a while if this article gets renamed. On the other hand, if you rename the article but mention the occupation (directly or indirectly) there is no reason to rename it, not to mention that apart from your suggested "provisional government" section, there would be so little relevant information that doesn't involve occupation.

The armies of srb/gre/mne marched into territory with none or minority srb/gre/mne population (the majority being albanian) and after a short while left, that is all. On the other hand this occupation is a very important part of the albanian history, their newly created country was invaded, we albanian national figures like Çerçiz Topulli fighting, and large amounts of literature, including Lahuta e Malcis by Gjergj Fishta covering the montenegrin occupation of the region Shkodër, which is one of the most important pieces of albanian literature. In fact there is so much to write about that if this article would be renamed, after a while there would be a need for an article specifically dealing with the albanian point of view (this wouldn't happen in quite a while of course but it illustrates what I said earlier) --Cradel (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support per user Constantine. Excellent arguments. Don't forget that the term “occupation of Albania” suggests the existence of a state which was attacked and occupied. That was not the case.Seleukosa (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting points from Cradel. The only thing everybody has to remember is that those points seem to imply occupation according to one definition but the whole clause is occupation of Albania and nowhere is it accepted that this was Albania that had been occupied. Serbia and Greece (and to a smaller extent, Montenegro) were hoping to annex the lands and the world outside recognised the Ottoman Empire as the legal overlord. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: You have to understand theAlbanian Declaration of Independence for understanding this title, after Skanderbeg Albania was occupied, after the Declaration it wasn't any more--Vinie007 12:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A one-sided declaration (and a proposed frontier) doesn't establish the borders of a state inside the international comunity: that happened on December 1913 (P. of Florecne). According to this definition, Vlore is occupied Greek territory, since it was included in the proposed Greek state of 1828 [[9]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Albania was independent since declaration of Skanderbeg, since the Venetians and there allys regonite Skanderbeg as emperatore of Albania, it says that after it was occupied! --Vinie007 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion is now becomig ridiculous. The Republic of Venice dissolved long before the activities of 1912. Since 1866 it has been a part of Italy (in all its entities). Never mind about Skanderbeg, that has nothing to do with Albania's 1912 declaration of independence. For Venice to have recongised Albania can only mean it disputed Ottoman sovereignty. And just as other users have pointed out, if Albania was occupied then, it is still occupied today - Montenegro occupies Pljevlja which is in the old Sandžak of Novi Pazar, part of Kosovo in 1912, and Kosovo's then capital Skopje is today in the hands of local rebels - Macedonians, renegade Serbs/Bulgarians that use a Greek name. I'm not opening old wounds on Macedonia-related matters, I'm just pointing out the ridicule that we would go on to adopt if we accept the arguments to keep this article by its current name. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the logic presented by Vinnie, Ottoman Albania should be renamed to Occupation of Albani (1479-1912). Athenean (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: According to my comments in the previous paragraph.CrazyMartini (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support and open to suggestions. We cannot backdate 'occupations' to a time before the birth of a country. All the wikipedia articles that start with 'Occupation of...' are about the occupation of a country at a time of its actual existence. If we google "occupation of", we find 6,430,000 results and, again, we notice that the results of this search in their overwhelming majority are about countries at the time of their existence. If this title is accepted then we could envisage misleading proposals such as 'Occupation of Greece (1453-1821)' simply because the Greek state identified at one point its borders to be that of the Byzantine empire. Or 'Occupation of England' by the Romans, when England did not even exist then. Or an article on Kosovo titled 'Occupation of Serbia (1999-2010)'... Of course an article on 1912-1913 might be useful, but surely an objective title can be found. Politis (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well argued. Articles for Slovenia, Slavonia and Vojvodina can all be moved to Occupation of Austria-Hungary!!!! Much of contemporary Europe is itself an Occupation of Nazi Germany. Humour never ends! Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The argument is flawed. An occupation is an invasion from foreign armies, as simple as that. Nazi Germany of course occupied most of Europe. So did the Balkanic countries with Albania in 1913. And it is an objective title: what would not be objective is to give the article a descriptive, neutral sounding, but deeply flawed title such as Albania during the Balkanic Wars: Albania existed and was being invaded: the article speaks exclusively about the occupation of Albania from "friendly" neighboring armies. I'll tell you more: it's already a favor that the Albanian editors are doing to the neighboring editors that they are not renaming the article into Albania under Greece and Serbia, because if we have to be consistent with other articles that's exactly what the article should be called. Actually, if this move really goes through, that will be exactly the new title that I will have to ask in order to be consistent with other similar articles. --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The argument not flawed. If you'd been a Nazi sympathiser, you'll have believed that Europe today is occupied by anti-Nazi regimes; this region that in 1912 Greek and Serbian kingdoms were struggling for was not Albania in the eyes of anybody except those that made the unilateral declaration. Res ipsa loquitor. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Evlekis: Greece and Serbia had governments who knew fully well what they were doing. Albania's first cabinet started to function on December 4 1912.--Sulmues ^(talk) 00:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it didn't, but that was a de facto entity that clearly had limited status in that it was involved in a struggle against two other countries that had defined their own territories as including the same lands. Serbia was independent from 1878 and Greece from circa 1830 so they too had fully functioning cabinets. I will also remind you that Transdniestr has a cabinet but it is still widely recognised as lying within Moldova. If the Moldovan forces can build up enough strength and courage to retake the zone, I am every bit certain that the Slavic population of Transdniestr as well as its government will feel cheated but it will never be accepted from outside it that the move amounts to an occupation, or that the territory is a country called Transdniestr. Evlekis (Евлекис) 05:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• STRONG OPPOSE. Albania was occupied and the date of worldwide independence should make no difference. The fact is that the territory occupied DID BECOME Albania in the eyes of the world soon after, so it was legally Albania once it was declared. The same of Kosova even though it took nearly 100 years for Kosova to be recognized. All the neutral and reliable sources on Kosova (like Noel Malcolm, Tim Judah, Anscombe) all show that Kosova was always under Serb occupation and was never legally incorporated into Serbia. I admit Kosova is not part of Albania today but it is a good example of a perfectly legal country that is independent and run by it's own people, exactly was Albania was in 1912 when it included Kosova. So it was certainly occupied by Greeks and Serbs. Prince of Kosova (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is interesting and you obviously feel strongly about it, but the logic behind it is not compatible with Wikipedia. Perhaps you can think about the repercussion of what you wrote? Politis (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't his logic compatible with Wikipedia? --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely because it is opinionated and controversial and based on fantasy not reality; he wishes to give Albania a premature birth by his own admission and he considers three certified Serbophobiac sources as reliable, needless to mention his references to Kosova. Here is an example of his "logic"[10]. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please respect this process and do not bring unrelated edits: I am asking Politis why he thinks that Prince of Kosova's argument is not compatible in Wikipedia, I'd rather hear Politis himself, not you. As far as Albania's birth is related, the date is November 28 1912: that was no premature birth, it was actually a tardy one, as it was the last of the Balkans. Calling Albania's birth "premature" shows way more lack of equilibrium on your side than what I see in Prince's edits.--Sulmues ^(talk) 00:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat that, irrespective of when the declaration of independence occurred, there were no finalized borders and no recognized government. The Greeks and Serbs occupied Ottoman territory, not Albanian (in the sense of belonging to an Albanian state), and they fought Ottoman troops to get there. The point is, the present title gives retroactive validation to the borders that were established after the fact of military occupation. More importantly, as Alexis and others pointed out, these declarations represent nationalistic aspirations and can not be taken for a source: else we could start articles on the ongoing "Greek occupation of Yanina" (since that too was claimed for the new Albanian state), or the "Turkish occupation of Constantinople", the "European occupation of Aotearoa", etc. The argument using the declaration as the source of legitimacy is simply fallacious, even if it seems perfectly natural to an Albanian (thank national education for that). The same would have been the case if the Greek War of Independence had failed: the declaration of independence would have been consigned to the dustbin. Whether we like it or not, until recognized by an international conference, such declarations are of little legal consequence. Constantine ✍ 05:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And again I'll have to use the USA example: No recognition, no borders fixed on July 4, 1776. Just a declaration. Recognition came 7 years later for the Americans, still 1776 is the magic number. Recognition and borders fixing don't matter, what matters is the will of a people and it's been a century since president Wilson doctrines that history is written in a certain way. Ottoman troops were still in Albania and they were actually being fought by the Albanians as well in that time: the Ottomans were still denying the Albanians their independence. Yanina was a mix city in 1912 and it would be controversial to claim it an occupation, but Kosovo was occupied by Serbian troops and that's how modern historiography views it. We are here disputing a title and the argument that is being brought by the Greco-Serbian side is simply claiming that only an international recognition might baptize the birth of a country. This is simply not true and there are plenty of examples in history where that is not the case. It's the de facto situation that matters. Again I am opposing the move into Albania during the Balkan Wars but I wouldn't oppose the move into Albania under Greece and Serbia. It's just that through the arguments that you Greeks and the Serbs bring here, simply deny the existence of Albania the country, while this country existed.--Sulmues ^(talk) 05:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

All right Sulmues, what then happens when two or more countries lay claim to the same territory at the same time? Greece and Serbia had both defined the territory as righfully theirs long before 1912, that is why they never went to war with each other; each respected the other party's integrity and had arrived at the agreement betweem themselves as natural allies. Even (FY)ROM authorities never claim to have been occupied despite working on a state since the 1860s and pushing for all kinds of recongition from that time until 1991 when they emerged with the Yugoslav section only. The existence of an Albanian state is not denied by Greeks and Serbs but by everyone of the time, it was a unilateral venture. The U.S in turn has not claimed that it has been occupied unless I am mistaken. And apart from it not being the de facto situation that matters, but de jure, I cannot see that there was anything more than a nominal Albanian government since if the region had such a strong Greek/Serbian presence, just who exactly will have been more powerful de facto? Were Bulgarians/Serbs of Skopje using Albanian money and attending schools with Albanian as first language? Skopje was within Kosovo and that was declared by the Provincial Government so how much de facto power did Albania even have? Evlekis (Евлекис) 06:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course Greece and Serbia defined their territories peacefully. They are not ethnically adjacent! Turkey and Albania would also define their territories peacefully for the same reasons. Between Greece and Serbia there is a sea of Bulgarians, Slav Macedonians and of course Albanians. What kind of a comparison is that? The Slav Macedons have started to have a national identity in the 1990s in my opinion because before that, they mostly felt Bulgarians. These are completely irrelevant (and erroneous) comparisons that you are making.--Sulmues ^(talk) 07:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

One more thing to Sulmues, by using the term "birth", perhaps I phrased myself incorrectly. Sorry. I meant the state's inception in the eyes of the outside world; yes an Albanian state would come into existence and yes that region endured a Greek/Serb government presence. Prince's argument was that we should all accept a retrospective occupation, that is what I meant by premature. Many entities arose from the wreckage of the crumbling Ottoman Empire, some lasted, some melted away themselves; take the Republic of Tamrash as an example; take also the first modern independent Bulgaria that was never to be, that what included much of the Macedonia region and areas in Greek Thrace including Aegean sea access. The Porte itself recognised this but international involvement created a major setback by carving out a tiny section of the entire region and giving Bulgaria a mere autonomous entity within the Ottoman Empire. Bulgaria has not regained some of these lands to this very day. Everything that happened in 19th/20th century Ottoman Empire pertained to Turkish influence that was now dwindling alongside the rise of nationalism among the multi-ethnic populations that lay within; new ideas of irredenism and plans to redraw old borders. So Prince's remark and reference to "did become" are somewhat premature for the time in question, I didn't mean the actual birth of an Albanian state. His remarks on Kosovo also reflected insensitivity. Remember, when Serbia, Montenegro and Romania gained independence in 1878, they become the 27th-29th states of the world. The U.N alone has 192 members since 2006. Kosovo today is recognised by 71 states so its status is gradually arriving at what it is to become, unlike a century ago when a state went from unrecognised to recognised in one fell swoop; first the Treaty, then the outcome, signed, sealed, delivered. Evlekis (Евлекис) 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This topic is only about who likes Albanians, and who don't! Ok we understand you don't like our Albania, we had a state far before 1912, please read Skanderbeg and League of Lezhë --Vinie007 08:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that is sadly how you seem to interpret this. Being defensive-minded is one thing, believing that everyone else is out to get you is paranoid and contravenes AGF. For heaven's sake, read the arguments, and substitute "Albania" with "Greece" or "Bulgaria" or "China" or anything else... You wouldn't disagree then. Of course Albania existed as a geographical/ethnic region, no one in their right minds disputes that. The question is about the term "occupation" and the specific connotations it conveys. And since the Albanian provisional government never even controlled the territories in question before they were occupied, there was no occupation of the Albanian state territory. There was occupation of Albania in a geographic sense, but that is not the issue. And I really don't see how the proposed title is "misleading" either. Constantine ✍ 09:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Sulmues. Beserks (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: We must not use terms like Occupation or massacre etc especially if they are not backed by serious material.Villick (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I believe that Alexikoua is right and that Albania during the Balkan Wars would be a more suitable title.Pavlos1988 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• OPPOSE I think this page should be given a chance. We should allow the authors to finish the page and then declare if we want to change anything about it. The page is clearly on a beginning phase.-Anna Comnena (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Current standing: Support 10-8 Oppose (unless Strong Oppose scores higher). Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Off course it's not about votes but about arguments (all votes are equal).Alexikoua (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: All the "oppose" votes are from Albanian editors, who are here voting as a single national block. No need to comment on the quality of some of the arguments from said national block. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: All the support votes except for one(Villick) are either from Greek or Serb editors but no Albanian editor is even trying to imply that these arguments are somehow not equal to the rest, while I have said that I support neither Sulmues's nor Alexikoua's versions. Btw Athenean it would be prudent if you didn't make comments that can easily be considered npa violations.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Zjarri. I contend that I am neither Greek nor Serb, so that is two. Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Zrethues: Suppose this means you recall your 'oppose' vote.Alexikoua (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And why would you assume that? --Sulmues ^(talk) 07:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not making personal attacks against anyone. National-block voting is a fact here, and it needs to be pointed out so that it can be taken into account by the closing admin (it's not obvious just by looking at the user names and signature). And some of the arguments brought are, well, not the best. There are no personal attacks here. If you can point out which specific user I am making personal attacks against, and how, I will apoligze to that user. Athenean (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Brought it up on WP:CCN, as it seems we are going around in circles. Athenean (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think Sulmues has a point in his arguments. Legally speaking Albanian state came to existence in 1912. (See legal opinion here in Consequences of state succession for nationality Author European Commission for Democracy through Law Publisher Council of Europe, 1998 ISBN 9287138095, 9789287138095, while the status of things in this period is generally described as "From its inception in 1912 to the beginning of the Second World war, Albania experienced constant occupation or changes in political leaders." here Aigest (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually Sulmues' didn't give a single argument apart from speaking about how alive is Albanian irredentism in wikipedia and the concept of the lost Albanian lands (Janina, etc), something that's completely out of the scope of this project.Alexikoua (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexi, please think before you accuse me for the second twice of being an irredentist. I don't want to take any glory about pointing out that Albania started to exist as a country in 1912, because that is known by 7 year old children, but I have to say it many times in wikipedia: it seems like people really don't get international law here, because I keep hearing rants about de iure situations being superior to de facto ones, and United Nations tales, when the United Nations are just a puppet of the big five.--Sulmues ^(talk) 07:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So what you think, our Wikiproject stops at the border of greece? We have had a long historical relation with Greece, you must let us some space for our opnion and not only the Greece one! Greece didn't write the Balkan history, we did it together! BTW Axis occupation of Greece during World War II? We could say it wasn't a occupation because it was for the Lebensraum of the Nazi's. Why don't you rename it, Greece under Nazi Germany? --Vinie007 09:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(facepalm) Did you read and/or understand anything in this discussion before posting? Greece exists as an independent state since 1830. Enough with the nationalist knee-jerk reactions already... Constantine ✍ 09:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Alex, just leave apart such accusations, they tend to move discussion in other areas. From what I've read from above, I thought that Sulmues was trying to explain that declaration of Independence is different from the act of recognition. It is the declaration which starts the process and states legacy origin began from that point.(Just as stated in the above legal reference). Also Albania didn't participated in Balkan wars although much of the pretended territory was occupied. The reasons for the start of Balkan war are very simple, every Balkan country wanted another piece of OttomanEmpire. Nacertania, Megali Idea, Big Bulgaria etc were nation state ideologies at that time. No reasons to be ashamed of those facts, even other countries had nation based ideologies. Understanding the near collapse of Ottoman Empire and that the autonomy granted to four Albanian villayets would jeopardize their ambitions, they attacked, simple as that. The tale stories of "Liberation" were part of the propaganda presented before the Great Powers. In fact the second Balkan war and massacres in both Balkan wars show the true nature of those wars. Aigest (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

:Strongest Support: It is a piece of cake desicion: No recognition-no borders-no occupation. Simple as history lesson.Metsobon34 (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Metsobon34 hadn't made a single edit since the end of May and now he joins the discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent):Zrethoues: Please avoid a one-sided approach (both here and in irc). For example Anna Comnena [[11]] and Prince of Kosova [[12]] have also some few edit the last months, not to mention disruptive behavior and deletion of support votes [[13]][[14]]. It's not a majority/minority issue by the way (Zjarthoues: since your oppose vote was due to technical issues[[15]] that are fixed now, suppose you are ok with the move)Alexikoua (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• :::BITTER OPPOSE. Agree with ZjarriRrethues, Metsobon has not been on wikipedia since five months and so his opinion should not count. Why are we going round in circles? Because we are dealing with Greco-Serb propaganda and plans still in their heads to create the Greater Greece and the Greater Serbia which they always dreamed of. Albania was legal from 1912, who says the broders were not defined???? yes they were, they were ALBANIA and KOSOVA and EPIRUS REGION ENTIRE. These are where ethnic Albanians are from, and any Greco-Serbs living there were colonizing people sent in later years. Prizren is a 1000% Albanian town. So, when a legal country delcares it's independence, it doesn't matter how long it takes other countries to recognize, it starts from then. Take Kosova, Serbia still doesn't recognize, so? Is Kosova not independent? Kosova is newly independent from 2008, legally independent from 1990, and officially occupied from 1912-1990 by Serb military. So legally Kosova was in Albania from 1912-1990. Read the neutral sources of Noel Malcolm and Tim Judah then the Greco-Serbs can understand this argument. Forget the rhetorics of Slobodasn Milosevic and now defunct November 17 terrorists. They influece all of you Greco-Serbs, and idi u picku matera Serbsko govno Kosova is indepedent. There were no Serbs in Kosova or Greeks in south Albania to call it liberation Fige, Pussi malaka Ellikina. It was occupation and conquest. Souces say it was Albanians and not Balkan league pussies who chased Turks out of Rumelia, Balkan League sit behind and watch and then attack Albania after she has done all the hard work. Albania had declared independence, it included Kosova, and if this was not legal, why did the international community recognize Albania? And 98 years later, why did the ICJ recongize Kosova saying it was perfectly legal????? Albania was occuped, THAT IS THE END. Prince of Kosova (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry each user can vote only once (you've already voted above.Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i deleted your strike above his argument, because even someone that voted can give his opnion again, just count this as 1 vote but see the argumnent!--Vinie007 13:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the strike-through was unnecessary. Let the argument, such as it is, stand for the user and the quality of discourse he represents. Fortunately, he has met his all too justly deserved ban. Constantine ✍ 13:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes he deserved it, but same have to hapen with Serbian and Greece nationalist. Than i completely agree.

BTW, check the first of the HISTORY point.

“ the status of the territory of present-day Albania, the vast majority of which had been overrun by Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece ”

Maybe this does solve something--Vinie007 13:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have read through all the arguments, and I think that the fact is you cannot occupy something that is not there. Some albanians may have declared independence in 1912, but that does not mean there was an Albania at that time. A legal entity of Albania was not yet fully established, so it could not be occupied. It did however exist as an area, so the new title would be better. Other alternatives would be things like Occupation of Ottoman Albania (1912-1913), which would be more correct. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Chipmunkdavis. Looking back at Vinie's remark, the source to which you refer mentions "had been overrun" (pertaining to a time in the past), and "present-day Albania" (confirming an Albanian of the time but not one from the previous period). For anyone else supporting Prince of Kosova and his pathetic attempts at speaking Serbian (Serbsko?) and Greek, I couldn't help but laugh when reading his disquisition about Kosova legally having been in Albania from 1912-1990! So according to him, Kosovo (the first time round in 1990) declared independence from Albania. Keep it uncrossed if you believe his arguments are valid. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Occupation of Ottoman Albania" seems like quite a good alternative (I have given my arguments above for anyone who cares) --Cradel (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly more inclined to Cradel's suggestion, if it will achieve a consensus then I will not object. Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside from really not understanding why the original proposed title is supposed to be "defective", the new compromise has problems of its own: it is not clear. It says neither by whom or why this occupation took place, or what exactly "Ottoman Albania" comprises. The so-called Albanian vilayets? Albania and Kosovo? Modern Albania? If the former, we are in deep POV territory. If the latter, why do we need the qualifier? "Albania" by itself is understood by virtually everyone to mean the state of Albania and its associated borders. Furthermore, the very term "occupation" is the problem of the current title. In addition, as I stated above, if it stays at this, the article will never amount to anything more than a few stubby paragraphs to the extent that the Serbs/Greeks/Montenegrins occupied this part and left at that date. An article about such a crucial period in Albanian history is needed, and it should offer more context and perspectives than just the narrow "these bad bad nations came and occupied us, but we drove them off" which seems to be the general thrust. Grudges are about one half of Balkan history, but it is not what encyclopedias are made of. Constantine ✍ 22:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it needs clarification, I'll grant you. The word Albania when meaning the modern-day territory is the thin end of the wedge. A wider territory was declared and this is what Albanian editors refer to when citing 1912 as the birth of the modern state. But looking at it another way, this article concentrates mostly on Greek/Serb (and Montenegrin) campaigns within modern-day Albania, and if reliable sources can be provided confirming precisely what the Porte for a brief time saw as an Albanian political entity in Rumelia then we can all make real progress and be a step closer to naming the article accordingly. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@Constantine: from what I can see, your main argument is: the word "occupation" limits the scope of the article. What exactly is it that you want to include about this "event in history" that wouldn't be possible to include in a "Background" section? Furthermore, the problem is not whether anything was occupied but what was occupied. This is implied by the argument "these lands were occupied, but they weren't Albania". However, you can't deny that they were part of the ottoman empire, the part controlled (or at least inhabited) by albanians, hence: Ottoman Albania. This isn't of course a specifically defined territory, and this is where it gets tricky, but I do believe this is the best solution as it neither denies an albanian entity nor an occupation, and in the other hand treats Albania as part of the o.empire, which is how it was internationally considered at the time --Cradel (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we should apply terms about not specifically defined territories, since we can adopt much more clear ones: 'Ottoman Albania' doesn't necessary coincide with modern Albania, and the term 'Occupation' on Ottoman Albania is still problematic. It's like saying 'Occupation of Greater Serbia' or 'Greater Greece' or Occupation of some unclear political entity, titles that should be avoided in general.Alexikoua (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as having the same problems as "Occupation of Greater Serbia" but it was just a compromise suggestion. As for complaints about how the new title says neither by whom or why, neither does the current one, so that's not really an argument against the new title. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis, my point here was that some further definition should be added, like the "(1912-1913)" of the present title, only I prefer "in the Balkan Wars" because it is much much clearer and to the point, and also implies, to anyone knowledgeable enough, who the involved parties were. @Cradel my main point is first that "Occupation" is, by evidence of this discussion alone, a non-NPOV term, especially when used without acknowledging the legal vacuum of the period. Bearing that in mind, the proposed title covers the period well, defines its scope clearly, and passes no judgement. The fact that it also adds the opportunity for some expansion of the article is a welcome bonus. I already indicated above what could be added. The internal Albanian developments for one are entirely missing, and they were happening parallel to the process of the military operations and partially in response to them. As for "Ottoman Albania", the term is vague, it extends practically to all of "Greater Albania" and even further beyond. Should this article then cover the conquest of Kosovo or the Greek capture of Ioannina and (southern) Epirus? To me, it makes sense to limit this to the extent of the modern Albanian state, since it is that state that essentially emerged from the Balkan Wars. Ideally, to my mind, this article should chronicle how that came to be... Constantine ✍ 07:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Greater Albania is a term invented by Mussolini in 1940 (much later than 1912), and kept alive by the Serbian government of Milosevic as per Elsie p.71-72. Back in 1912 it was just Albania, and that Albania was way greater than today's Albania, as declared by the Albanian founding fathers. And of course Alexikoua may call me an irredentist, but these are historical facts. He still has written an entire wikipedia GA article Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus, which existed for a few months but forgets that Albania as envisaged and declared by its founded fathers existed inclusive of Ioannina until the capture of the city by the Greek Army: In fact the city had two representatives (while Chameria had four). I would call irredentistic some pieces of his GA article by the way. Limiting this article to the modern Albanian state would be completely unacceptable because the current Albanian state was not the one declared in 1912 by the Albanian founding fathers. As I explained earlier the delegates included Ioannina, Chameria, Kosovo, Oher, and Debar. --Sulmues ^(talk) 07:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, we don't write articles on countries based on the territory they claimed on their declaration of independence or any other inherently one-sided document, else there'd be chaos. Period. The fact is, the period 1912-1913 saw the establishment of an Albanian state with a certain set of borders. Instead of clamouring for the injustice that deprived it of more, our job is to explain how and why this happened the way it did. Constantine ✍ 09:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not mention any injustice or anything of that sort. I am trying to write history according to sources. Let's agree on two points:

1. The Albanian state started its existence in 1912. So Albania existed in 1912 as a political entity, not as merely a region. The political entity existed inclusive of Chameria and Kosovo.
2. That political entity was occupied right after Albania started its existence.

The title as a result is Occupation of Albania. Since Albania has been occupied multiple times, the title will be Occupation of Albania (1912-1913). As easy as that. All the attempts to change the name of the article are going to mislead the reader. Albania existed as a political entity and it was occupied. Greece, Serbia and Montenegro could have chosen to occupy it or to recognize it. They occupied. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• OPPOSE per Aigest-- LONTECH  Talk  23:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

STRONGEST OPPOSE - as per LONTECH/AIGEST. Albania was four former Ottoman vilayets and the Ottoman Empire recognized this, making it Albania. Albanians were more than 99% of the people in the whole region, just being close to 80% in Kosovo alone. That cannot be a liberation so it had to be an occupation. The occupations were also based on Serb-Greek nationalist aspirations and not actual "liberation" because Albanians were happy enough in the Ottoman Empire. Greeks and Serbs play too much on their legal fiction fantasies and ignore the fact that after 1913, Albania did become internationally recognized and it did include a fair piece of the land then delcared independent (today's Republic of Albania, then becoming a Principality). What more is there to be said? Happy Democrat (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

New user, likely sockpuppet. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, let's welcome back Prince of Kosova in his latest incarnation... Constantine ✍ 14:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. How can you occupy something that doesn't even exist?? A Macedonian (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Occupation is one of the words to avoid on Wikipedia. One man's occupation is another man's liberation. It should only be used in the very limited context of military occupation, and never to describe the complex relations between neighboring states.

I am sure Albanian historiography has no problem in describing this period as a military occupation of independent Albania. National historiographies are however tools to be used in irredentist battles with neighboring states. Occupation theories are the worst form of history tweaking – they serve as a form of hate speech directed at ethnic minorities from the “occupier”nations. I have no doubt that this particular occupation theory is used to justify the discrimination of “occupier” Serbs in “Kosova” at this very moment.

It is true, that from the point-of-view of Albanian legal fiction, independent Albania was occupied from the day of the declaration of independence. It is also true, that the neighboring countries militarily occupied large parts of Ottoman territory. Combining these two truths into the one “truth” implied by the title is a synthesis unsupported by the facts.

A POV title precludes the creation of NPOV content. If the issues described here were not central to today's ethnic conflicts, then a neutral title would not be so important. The article now seems to be saying, that Serbian rule in Kosovo was part of this occupation. This is only one of the multiple POV-issues with the article. They all seem to stem from the selection of an unsalvageably povish title.

I would support the alternative title Occupation of Ottoman Albania. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Labeling things POV without first questioning the sources that support it, shows some lack of understanding of the matter. Who or what gave Serbia the right to occupy Kosovo? Who or what gave Greece the right to occupy southern Albania? Calling Albania "Ottoman Albania" is first of all a big no no. Where did you get that term? I've never heard of the term "Ottoman Albania". Albania was independent, not ottoman. Can you explain where you found that expression? Last, can you please make a clear referral to the manual of style that the word "Occupation" should be avoided? And we have to, because Wikipedia doesn't allow the word occupy, what would be the synonym/euphemism to use? That said, you still propose the word occupy, so why are you mentioning that "occupy" should be avoided in the first place?--Sulmues ^(talk) 21:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, your position is completely baseless. Nations do not come into spontaneous existence with borders and all the moment they sign a document to that effect. When Greece declared its independence, the National Assembly counted delegates from Macedonia, Crete, Epirus, and Constantinople, aside from the territory that eventually formed independent Greece. Does this mean that at that very moment, a Greek state came into being, encompassing all these territories? Damn, then why the hell did we continue fighting for seven more years? This suggestion is so patently absurd that I really did not expect it from you. The statement "So Albania existed in 1912 as a political entity, not as merely a region. The political entity existed inclusive of Chameria and Kosovo." is hence totally unacceptable. Albania existed as a self-proclaimed, unrecognized political entity, but its borders were yet to be defined. Even before the Albanian declaration of independence, most of Kosovo and the modern Republic of Macedonia was occupied by the Serbs, for instance, so how did this Albanian state claim to exercise any authority there? And for the n-th time, when the Greek Army entered Korce and Gjirokaster, it was not against Albanian, but Ottoman troops, i.e. these areas were still Ottoman territory, no matter the pretensions of the Vlore assembly. Constantine ✍ 23:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

@Constantin:things are a little more complex that it looks.

1. We know Ottoman government accepted Albanian requests in August 1912.(see refs in the article)
2. With the acceptance of requests from Albanian rebellion of August 1912, the status of Albania (including four Albanian villayets) is classified as a quasi state or quasi-statehood by scholars.

So apart from the status itself, the above facts are also related with the legality of the Albanian delegates in the Declaration of Independence in November 1912 (from the four Albanian villayets). So this is different from the case of Greece mentioned by you above Aigest (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But the (unfulfilled) promise to create a united autonomous Albanian super-vilayet within the Ottoman Empire is a totally different animal from an independent Albanian state encompassing these same territories and actually exercising some sort of control over them. It is pretty clear that this agreement was never actually implemented. There have been dozens if not hundreds of such cases of states whose creation/development was arrested in history, see Wilsonian Armenia or the Union State to name but a few. A proposal, promise or a declaration, unless translated into hard political reality on the ground, remains just that. It can form the basis for future legal claims, but it does not create its own reality simply by virtue of its existence. Constantine ✍ 08:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, we would not have the debate if it was different. I know that your opinion might look ok in seeing the course of the events, but legally speaking things are very complicated. Legally speaking Ottoman Empire accepted the Albanian quasi state before the events of the first Balkan war. Legally speaking Albanian had the right, although they were not able to execute it. As for the legality of the independence declaration act, an example would be the verdict of ICJ in the case of Kosovo (the right of self determination, the lawfulness of the independence declaration act etc). I might summarize this dispute as "de jure" vs "de facto" case. Aigest (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Albanian" had the right to do what? I assume you mean that Albanians had the right to declare independence? I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. Who/what gave them the "right"? Also, what do you mean that "Legally speaking" the Ottomans accepted a quasistate? Did they or didn't they? As for the ICJ case, thats making a modern decision relate to a historical event, which should not be done. Historical events must be treated with historical perspective. And besides, this was before international law really existed, before the UN, and even before the League of Nations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman government accepted the requests of Albanian rebellion of 1912 in August 1912 before the start of the first balkan war. Plz read the references in the article and inform yourself better in the subject before commenting here. ICJ opinion was just an example of how the jurisprudence interprets the legality of the declaration act (if you know any other legal opinion on the issue plz bring it forward). According to your interpretation the forefathers of USA were not legal also, but just a band of rebels and so on you can continue with every nation which has declared independence from the occupying force in the last 200 years. A world full of illegal countries Aigest (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read the article, but not all the references, and in no way is that a reason I should not participate in debate. And as for the USA argument, yes, many considered them to be a band of rebels (especially the British, no doubt). In many eyes their revolution was not "legal", which in itself is a meaningless phrase in regards to periods of history where there really was no international law other than that dictated by powerful countries. The revolution however was recognized as "Legal" (meaning official in the worlds eyes) upon recognition by the former occupying power, in the USA article it is noted as September 3, 1783. As for the rest, the same applies, states declaring independence are often ignored until recognized by the international community/occupying power. In Albania's case, this would be after the Balkan War. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mine was just an advice, none is stopping you to say what you want, but if you (but other users also) would at least read the article (the Ottoman accepting was there in the text apparently you didn't read) before commenting, should have spared to others kbytes of space and a lot of time. USA celebrates 4th of July, Albania November 1912 and practically every state celebrates the date of independence and not that of recognition. Summarizing to you "It is the act of Declaration who initiate a state". For legal issues related see above my comments. Aigest (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read the article (not exactly long), it says the Ottomans recognized their autonomy. That makes them as much an independent country as Sardinia or Sicily is now. Furthermore, if a state simply became a state due to a declaration of independence, then there would be no debate about the statehood of places like Somaliland and Abkhazia, or to stretch the point, Hutt River Province. Obviously simple declarations are often not enough. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I don't think that Sardinia or Sicilia are classified by the scholars as Quasi-States and I don't think that neither Somaliland status is accepted by Somalia nor Abkhazia status from Georgia. Leave aside generalizations, the case is specific. Aigest (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, Somaliland is not accepted as independent by Somalia, Abkhazia is not accepted as independent by Georgia. Similarly, Albania was not accepted as independent by the Ottoman Empire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line – If you need to base your argument on legality – however justified or unjustified – then the word "occupation" should not be used. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To demonstrate the scope of possible points-of-view I provide the following alternative lede to the article.

“ The Liberation of Albania from Ottoman rule was the result of the Balkan Wars in 1912-1913, when the armies of the Balkan League member states: Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece entered Ottoman territory. The Treaty of London in May 1913 created the independent Principality of Albania under Prince William of Wied while the liberated Kosovo Vilayet became the province of Kosovo in Serbia. ”

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Liberation is another very loaded word Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm opened at any suggestion that includes my concerns expressed above. I have some doubts though over the paragraph proposed by Krohn. Is a very far reach to say that Albania was liberated by the Balkan war. Neighboring countries didn't want an independent Albania, they just wanted to divide it. It was the decision of Great Powers who forced them to withdraw. Also Albanian had defeated Ottoman forces before, gaining what they wanted first, the quasi-state status, there was no need for them to expel the Ottomans, on the contrary they saw the Ottoman forces as defending what they perceived as Albania during Balkan wars. Furthermore seeing the complications they declared independence and Ottoman forces did not opposed resistance to that. That is very complicated indeed. Aigest (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

NOTE – This discussion has now been posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. I ask that the time for votes be extended to allow neutral parties to take part in this discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

“ The title as a result is Occupation of Albania. Since Albania has been occupied multiple times, the title will be Occupation of Albania (1912-1913). As easy as that. All the attempts to change the name of the article are going to mislead the reader. Albania existed as a political entity and it was occupied. Greece, Serbia and Montenegro could have chosen to occupy it or to recognize it. They occupied. ”

This comment of Sulmues is very easy en very right i think, every one need to agree with this explanation i think --Vinie007 19:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Sulmues' claim is simply wp:or.Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Which claim is OR? --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole conversation is now exhausted; neither one block having convinced the other of its rationale. One side is adamant that the Albanian political entity was fully functional and valid, the other says it was neither and hence the actions were neither an occupation nor were they taking place on any Albanian soil. It's been said dozens of times, and we cannot find new grounds for solution or argument, it is becoming tiresome to continue. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can think of at least two things to do: 1) Take this to arbitration and have all these ethnic POV-pushers banned. 2) Delete this whole pile of manure as an WP:ATTACK page on the Scythians – or who ever Albania's neighbors were. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well one user has already been banned (Prince of Kosova) but the rest of us have not actually violated any WP policy. All editing has been confined to the talk page with nobody taking liberties on the article, and as for POV-pushing, well I'm afraid we are always going to get that. It is intrinsic for many people where sensitive issues are involved. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Crone, there is no need to use such language. If you don't like the pile of manure, don't participate in the discussion. Beserks (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, did I say Crone? What I meant was Krohn, of course.Beserks (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues, Prince of Kosovo, etc. I do not doubt your good intentions over the title 'Occupation of Albania...'. There are also editor who would like to refer to Southern Albania as 'Occupation of Greece', or others to speak of Kosovo/Kosova as 'Occupation of Serbia'. But occupation can only take place of an internationally recognised country. The territory occupied in 1912 was Ottoman, most of its inhabitants were probably Albanians but in was not 'Albania'. Southern Albanian then became for a short while an autonomous province of Northern Epirus, etc. I have explained if you make a search of 'occupation of...' in google or wikipedia, the results are not about non-existing official countries. We cannot have an 'occupation of France/England by the Romans' but 'occupation of Gaul/Britain by the Romans'. That is why I say, look into the matter. We all try to behave like good, objective Wikipedian editors. Both of you have many good contributions to make in your specialist field and it is a shame if your edits are judged by your support of this title.Politis (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ok let's name it Occupation of the Albanians (1912–1913), because it where even the people in albania, serbia, greece and macedonia --Vinie007 12:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A group of people can't be occupied, so that won't work. Discussions about title names should probably take place above the arb break. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Occupation concerns land (or sea); I suppose the equivalent term for a population is subjugation of, but all of the concerned nations were subject to subjugation for centuries before the topic of this article, so Ottomans being replaced by Greeks and Serbs is for any Albanian a continuity of subjugation. That article can't work either, nice thought though. Evlekis (Евлекис) 02:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Evlekis. You can have a look at:

• Occupation of Iraq
• Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany
• Occupation of Japan
• Occupation of the Baltic States
• Occupation of Poland (1939-1945)
• Occupation of Denmark
• Occupation of Palestine
• Occupation of Czechoslovakia
• Occupation of France by Nazi Germany.

I think your arguments would be great for these pages also.Beserks (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles related to WW II are uncontested in the historiography of the Second World War. As for the others:

• Occupation of Iraq is a redirect to Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.
• Occupation of Palestine is a redirect to Palestinian territories
• Occupation of the Baltic States is a WP:POVFORK of Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR and Lithuanian SSR

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I to think this goes a bit to far, nobody will say that it's currect title now incorrect, maybe not 100% but this is best option --Vinie007 11:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As a neutral who have not been following this debate for so long. Could someone please explain to me why the word occupation only can be used when sovreign nations are occupied? To put this diffrently, ifa Albania had been returned to the Ottoman empire, and been part of Turkey today, the natural title of the article would be the occupation of Albania(disambiguated for time period). It seems clear to me that a nation, or in this case alliace of nations, can occupy parts of another nation. In the case of WWII we have Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany, but nobody is arguing against the fact that Belarus was a part of USSR at the time. Taemyr (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not the issue. The combination in the title of "occupation" and "Albania" makes the implicit claim that the sovereign principality of Albania was occupied. However Albania as it stands today was only created after the occupation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Why was the discussion closed? I don't see any consensus for Occupation of Ottoman Albania or any variants thereof. As far as I can tell, the discussion is still stalled. The main problem remains the use of the word "occupation", which is inherently POV. Athenean (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For two reasons:

• There is a factual basis for the use of the word "occupation" – as in military occupation, as demonstrated by the arguments.
• The proposed alternative did not reach a consensus or even an substantial majority of votes.

Also note, that the time limit for move discussions, 7 days is long overdue.

As you see here, the new title has already enabled a major turn in the article toward a neutral point-of-view. If you feel that the no !votes were issued by single-purpose-accounts only interested in distorting the neutrality of Wikipedia by pushing their nationalistic point-of-view, you will have to take the issue to arbitration. Note however, that others may have similar feelings about you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A very big "Huh?" is in order here. If the time limit expires, then the usual course is to declare no consensus and do nothing, or continue the discussion. Moving unilaterally to a title that has the least support of all proposals and has been attacked as vague or misleading by both parties in the dispute is really an odd solution... Constantine ✍ 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The proposed title Albania during the Balkan Wars did not reach anywhere near the needed consensus. Are you asking that the article be returned to Occupation of Albania (1912–1913). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So? Why is a proposal that had virtually no support a better idea? The discussion is still ongoing, and most contributors here may have strong views, but also present arguments to support them. There are exceptions of course, but I remark that no one from either side moved the page while this discussion was ongoing, respecting the rules. So much for "Balkanic silliness", indeed... Constantine ✍ 21:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Constantine. It was not the right thing to do. It is not the way we have dealt with similar problems before. No need abolish good practices and create dangerous precedents. Aigest (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is moving backwards and forwards like a Fatboy Slim video. A-movin-laka-this, a-movin-laka-that. I'm not sure what the ding-dong is going on. Politis (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The title is wrong. There could be no occupation of Albania since Albania as a country didn't even exist at that time. The title should be Occupation of ethnic Albanian territories ( even that is not 100% true ). I see nothing of Ottoman occupation of Albania ?

These Balkan History Wiki articles are getting a little boring with all the POVs....especially from Albanian side. Thank god we have other resources in the nearby libraries that cannot be "deleted" or/and edited. Goodbye and enjoy your childish history makeover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.89.219 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This article exists on Wikipedia on Serbian language. The title is (I am not sure if I will manage to translate it correctly) "Occupation of portion of Ottoman Balkan villayets (1912–1913)":

• Why portion? One should not forget that only portion of territory that belonged to Ottoman empire (even territory that today belongs to Albania) was occupied before ceasefire in December 1912, or before London treaty at the end of May 1913. There were several cities on territory that today belongs to Albania that were not occupied, Skadar (Shkodra)(until April 1913) and Janina (Ianina)(until February 1913) and its surrounding area, together with much bigger area around cities Valona (Vlore) and Berat that remained under Ottoman rule and was not occupied at all by Balkan allies, but by kachaks under control of Ismail Qemali! If we insist on occupation terminology, it was kachaks under command of provisional goverment from Vlore and Ismail Qemali that also took participation in occupation of Ottoman villayets and should be treated as occupation forces in Ottoman empire, together with Balkan allies, untill Principality of Albania was founded and recognized at July 29th 1913. Also, there is a part of Balkan near Istanbul that was not occupied.
• Why Ottoman Balkan villayets? Because there is no doubt that there was occupation of territory that belonged to Ottoman empire on Balkan peninsula. That territory is much bigger than territory that, after signing of London treaty and declaring Albania independent state, became territory of Albanian Principality at the end of July 1913.
• Why not Occupation of Albania or Occupation of Ottoman Albania? Portion of Ottoman Balkan villayets that were occupied were part of Ottoman empire as sovereign internationally recognized state until it signed London treaty at the end of May 1913. Only when Ottomans signed London treaty at the end of May 1913. and left decision about fate of teritory that nowdays belongs to Albania to Six great forces, and only when, based on this treaty, Six great forces recognized Albania as sovereign country at the end of July 1913. someone could occupy Albania. But instead of occupation, Balkan allies signed London treaty that allowed Six great powers to establish Albanian principality at the end of July 1913. and retreated its armies from newly formed state withing couple of days or weeks, without one single gun shouted. Therefore I think that if one insists on putting name of Albania in the title of this article, it should be Creating of Albanian Principality not occupation of Albania, because all parties involved in occupation of portion of Ottoman empire (Ottoman empire, Balkan allies and Six great powers) created Albania not occupied it in period 1912-1913. Naming this article Occupation of Albania is not only against all relevant and reliable written sources, but also could be misused in order to create hate of Albanians toward Albanian neighbors who took significant part in establishing Albanian state and should be praised for that, not accused for occupation.

I agree that above mentioned title on wikipedia on serbian language could be estimated as too long but I think it corresponds with informations that can be found in relevant and appropriate sources about this occupation. Existing title is not supported by any relevant source of informations and therefore I propose to rename it to one of following names: Occupation of portion of Ottoman Balkan villayets (1912–1913) or Creating of Albanian Principality.

Discussion about title maybe prevented contributors to realize that there is one much bigger problem than title. It is text of article. There is nothing in text of article that is describing occupation itself (either it is occupation of Ottoman empire villayets, Ottoman Albania,or Albanian principality). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Arguments

Clearly this debate has come to a stop, people on both sides have remained unconvinced at the others arguments. Fresh views are needed, but they shouldn't have to wade through all the stuff above. What I suggest is that people present their full arguments out below. This is not meant for discussion of all the arguments, that has been gone over again and again above, but to present it for others to read. In your arguments you can include a rebuttal of opposition arguments used, although no names etc. should be used. Focus on content over contributor yes? Also, if you cite any precedents of decisions on wikipedia or other such things, please use diffs so others can see that too. Hopefully this will allow other editors to read all the arguments themselves, for and against, and make it a lot clearer for everyone. I'll include a third path, if anyone wants to take it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For the change to Albania during the Balkan Wars

Agree Proposed title is NPOV, current title is victimological and POV. It is also misleading since the territory was in the possession of Ottoman troops, not Albanian troops, and Albania was not recognized by any states at the time. We have articles about other the Balkan countries during the Balkan wars (e.g. Greece in the Balkan Wars), I don't see why we can't have Albania during the Balkan Wars. Athenean (talk)

Agree Per previous norm. Historical sequence is clear: 28 November 1912: Decleration of Independence, but neither de jure nor de facto control of the majority of what would become modern Albania (apart from one sided declerations nothing more), December 1913: (de jure) recognition of the border of the new state. Not to mention that the de facto control of all the territories, that were included to Albania, by Albanian authorities started from 1921.Alexikoua (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree The arguments have been made. "Occupation of Albania" in the legal sense cannot be applied given the legal vacuum and competing claims from all parties, for this would mean choosing sides. I also insist that the proposed title is more general and would allow a wider study of the process of the creation of the Albanian state. The military occupation by Greeks/Serbs/Montenegrins is but one aspect which cannot and should not be treated in isolation, for reasons of NPOV. Constantine ✍ 22:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree The operations in question predated what was merely a unilateral declaration of independence. The whole chapter itself testifies that this declaration was not widely accepted, and even when an Albanian political entity was finally inaugurated, it was not to contain every land within its proposal. In addtion, the Provincial Government of Albania never even established control over some of the regions remote from its power base. The current article implies that a Montenegrin military presence in the town of Bijelo Polje one month before Albania declared independence somehow constitutes an occupation of Albania. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree I will again stress the importance of adding the text based on facts about Albania itself and situation in Albania during period of Balkan wars. In the text we can find little or nothing about Albania (except for declaration of independence that is subject of another article) and situation in Albania during this period. There is nothing written about who governed this territory during Balkan wars, through what kind of institutions (Serbia created new administrative regions of portion of this territory, as it is part of Kingdom of Serbia, with its institutions, stuff, legislations...), what was the position of people there toward this institutions and vice versa (Albanian historiography is full of texts about Serbian soldiers robbing Albania and it should be stated, together with Serbian historiography claiming that Serbs and other Balkan allies liberated Albanians from Ottoman slavery). Without such text I think that we are having debate about the title of the article that should be deleted because its name is describing the event that did not occur (there was no occupation of Albania during Balkan wars, but there was only occupation of almost all parts of European territory of Ottoman empire) and its text does not correspond with name of the article but with name of other existing articles (Balkan wars and Albanian declaration of independence).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree Per my post above, per npov, and per Evlekis great post. -WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The pov claim that the 4 villayets were 'Albania' was just part of an old Ottoman propaganda something we should off course avoid (Ottoman propaganda is far from being something 'internationally recognized'). Not to mention that the Balkans according to old Ottoman logic were Rumelia (land of the Greeks). Such kind of misleading information should be avoided as completely unhistorical to modern historical standars.Alexikoua (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

CommentRumelia is land of the Romans. The Byzantine Empire's name was Roman Empire. Kavas (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kavas is correct here, Rumelia referred to the European mainland controlled by the Ottomans. I can't see how this remark helps his case though, it is not as if "Occupation of Albania" is suddenly justified because we have established what Rumelia was. Evlekis (Евлекис) 15:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree: I believe that this was easy to interpret, even if Ottoman propaganda said that we had Autonomus Albania 3 months before the Balkan Wars it was not recognized.CrazyMartini (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am just addicted to correction, nothing else. Kavas (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree Per my previous post.It is quit clear that term occupation cant apply here.Seleukosa (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree Per Athenean and per Evlekis. A Macedonian (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree This sounds enough. Occupation is a term we should replace and in Balkan topics is used wrong and mostly overused.Villick (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Against the change, wish to keep Occupation of Albania (1912-1913)

 Disagree Albania existed before and during the occupation that lasted during a whole year, both as a political entity and as a geographical region. Given its existence as a political entity, the word "Occupation" is necessary. A country exists when it is de facto independent and it has a government that runs it. Albania declared independence on November 28 1912 (for many reasons it was done so that in Albania there would be a "second November", after November 28 1443 when Albania national hero, Skanderbeg, went back to Kruje after deserting the Sultan's army). A government started to work full time on December 4 1912. The date of independence of the United States is 1776, when a declaration of independence was made, not when the country was recognized (in 1783). This should suffice to have in worldwide history books the independence of Albania as November 28 1912. Given the existence of Albania the country, the legal arguments are completely futile. Albania existed as a political entity and it was occupied by its neighbors exactly because they didn't wish to recognize the just born country. Actually the main reason of the worldwide recognition of Albania with the Protocol of Florence was made because of the heavy resistance of the Albanians to this triple foreign invasion of its dear neighbors. I want to add something else: I find it very disturbing that after a long discussion when no consensus was found, this was put for vote: voting is completely unneccessary as we have many more Greek, Serbian, and Montenegrin editors than Albanian ones, so a voting process will clearly give a name that will suit editors pertaining to the "invading" countries. In addition I find very disturbing that there is so much emphasis in changing the name of the article rather than work on the article itself, which is still in a start status. Thanks for taking the time to read me again. --Sulmues ^(talk) 11:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree Albania existed as the Autonomous Region of Albania since August 1912 and included all four Albanian-populated vilayets, so there aren't any actual legal arguments against this title, but I don't think that the main focus of this article should be the region's invasion etc.. In November 1912 Albania declared independence with those borders, which were reduced to the present day borders after the treaty of London. Since then two minor changes have occured: the first was the cession of the area of the monastery of St. Naum to Yugoslavia, while the second was the annexation of some villages from Greece in 1925 after an agreement between the Albanian and the Greek government. I disagree with the proposed title but I also disagree with the present title, because the occupation is just a small part of the political entity that was created after the capture of Uskub in 1912.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree For use of "occupation of albania", we don't need Albania to be an independent country. It's a region in Empire that was occupied by the Balkan countries (at least some parts of it were occupied). See Occupation of Constantinople. The territory was under Ottoman Sovereignty, but in the possession of Ottoman Albanian troops. We cannot assume that the aim of Balkan countries was to liberate Albania, if Western great powers did not intervene they could have annexed Albania. In article Indonesian National Revolution, it is said Allies occupied Indonesia though it was formerly a Dutch colony occupied by Japan Empire. In article Nedić regime, it is said that Serbia was occupied by Nazis, was Serbia a country then or part of Yugoslovia? Kavas (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: well, these examples don't really work. Constantinople was the recognized capital of the Ottoman Empire, and none of the states occupying it (including Greece) laid any claim on it. Albania was under Ottoman rule, its borders were undefined, and the statement that it was held by "Ottoman Albanian" troops is both OR and irrelevant, for these troops answered to the Ottoman government, not the Albanian provisional government. Indonesia was also a clearly defined, long-established territorial unit (Dutch East Indies), and, more importantly, you will notice that the article is not titled "Occupation of Indonesia (1945-1949)". The attempted analogy with WW2 Serbia is even worse: there was no disputed territory, it was a state created by the Germans out of a dissolved Yugoslavia. Constantine ✍ 15:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment "Ottoman Albanian" troops was not OR. I take it from Yılmaz Öztuna's book on Balkan Wars. The Ottoman Army in Albania was Albanian. It's ridicilous to employ Egyptian troops or soldiers from Trabzon in Albania. The simplest way is to use local population there. But these "Ottoman Albanian" troops was against Albanian nationalism. For use of occupation of Albania, Albania should be a region only, not country. You can open Occupation of İzmir and Occupation of the Channel Islands, but why not Occupation of Albania? Is it because borders are undefined in 1912? But today borders of Palestine is also undefined, but we use occupied Palestine. Maybe the title of the page in WP is Palestinian territories, but it's because Israelis' objection to occupied term, they see Palestine as their homeland. Kavas (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment If Albania is not a province in 1912-1913, then the name change does not change anything. Albania in Balkan Wars make us think that there was a country named Albania in 1912 right? Both names Albania in Balkan Wars and Occupied Albania has the same meaning regarding Albania's status in 1912. A solution for this problem could be to seperate the article to parts, such that we can have a seperate occupation article for each Ottoman province today part of Albania. Kavas (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And were all the Ottoman Muslims living in Macedonia, Epirus, the Sandjak etc. and got drafted into the Ottoman army "Albanians"? No. And if these troops were against the national movement (if that's what you say) then how does this support your argument above? Quite the contrary, I'd say. As for Palestine, we use "occupied Palestine" because a) the borders of Palestine (West Bank and Gaza) are well-established through a series of international treaties and declarations, including votes in the UN, b) Israel does not actually claim these territories for itself, so it is both de facto and de jure strictly a military occupier, c) a Palestinian administration exists, whether official or underground, which has exercised various degrees of control over these territories for over 50 years now, and d) because of common usage across the world. None of these factors apply to this case. WP:OTHERSTUFF simply does not work here. "Albania in Balkan Wars make us think that there was a country named Albania in 1912 right?" no it does not. It means that the territory we know of as Albania today had a history during the Balkan Wars, just as Albania under the Serbian Empire does not imply that there was a country then. It is common historical convention to use such titles. "Occupation of Albania" on the other hand, conveys, as explained ad nauseam, that there was at the time a recognized legal entity of that name, which is not the case. And if the proposed title means the same in your eyes, why do you oppose it? Constantine ✍ 15:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

how does this support your argument above? Because some user argued the opposite, this shows his argument is in error. The Palestine borders are undefined, since the status of Jerusalem is undefined. Israel annexed Jerusalem and called it as the capital of State of Israel. Albania in Balkan Wars means there is a country or province called Albania during these years. I oppose the name change because it does not solve the problem you want to solve, but it creates another problem. The problem is a title like Albania in Balkan Wars does not show the most important thing about Albania in this war, that's it was occupied. Kavas (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the issue: X state can't be occupied since it's non-existent (both de facto and de jure).Alexikoua (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree - I've given my arguments above. This doesn't look like it's improving though, still the same editors and same arguments, only 1-2 users are neutral on national basis --Cradel (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree The opposing party did not bring one single argument that makes sense, for the change. I liked especially "you can't occupy something that doesn't exist". Beserks (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC) User is permablocked as a sockpuppet, case's here [[16]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Third path: Neutral or other suggestions

Based on my above comment, I propose two different suggestions:

• Occupation of portion of Ottoman Balkan villayets (1912–1913) - with kachaks under control of Ismail Qemali and provisional goverment from Vlore as participant in occupation together with Balkan allies, or
• Creating of Albanian Principality.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The article should be expanded further to decide what name is more appropriate. Kebeta (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to ask something first. Was the entire "Albania" (of today) occupied by Serbs and Greeks or only east and south parts of it? Did the "occupying" forces make any claims of annexation of the entirety of Albania? As the title is now, it seems to me that the whole of Albania was occupied. So I'd like to vote for a change to the article name and support the position above. I also find a name like "Creation of [the] Albanian Principality" a very good alternative ("Creating" sounds wrong). Let's not also forget that until 1914 there existed a quasi autonomous North Epirot region. So talk of occupation and ethnic territory can go both ways.

I would also like to add that parts of the article appear POV and weaseling to me. Like:

In October 1912, the Balkan states, following their own national aspirations jointly attacked the Ottoman Empire and during the next few months partitioned nearly all of Rumelia, the Ottoman territories in Europe, including those inhabited by the Albanians.

"following their own national aspirations" seems a weird addition and not very encyclopedic. The sentence should also have a coma after it (and before "jointly"), grammatically. Another example is the whole Aftermath paragraph. It reeks of POVism and irredentism. I mean ethnic territory, who the hell uses that term? (I know I just used it in previous paragraph, this is a joke) Simanos (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that creating sounds wrong, but since my english is not perfect, will you please help and suggest another word instead of creating?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "Establishment of [the] Albanian Principality" ? Simanos (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Better idea, Albanian insurrection in Greece. After all, if it is all right to call an unrecognised land Albania just because an Albanian institution declared it, it should be fine to call the same land Greece or Serbia because those kingdoms declared independence of their proposed states years earlier. Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Establishment is better term than creating. That means that proposal "Establishment of [the] Albanian Principality" is proposal for third path that is neutral. Should we vote for it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably have to vote against on this one because although it is true, that is not the subject of this article. The topic here is the campaign by the Greek/Serb advancing forces and their operations. Occupation or not? Albania or not? Those are still the issues. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no Occupation of Albania in 1912-1913 period, because Albania did not exist during occupation of parts of European Ottoman Empire. It is not question Occupation or not and Albania or not. It is question of choice between:

• deleting the article with subject about event that never happened or
• renaming the article to "Establishment of [the] Albanian Principality" to match the text because existing name of the article does not correspond with the text of the article which describes process of creation of Albanian Principality.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with your proposal. The problem is you know that none of the opponents of name change will support this proposal precisely because you have stated in your suggestion "Albania did not exist during occupation" when they all say it did. They say that the independence they declared in 1912 was enough to constitute this. So my support will cut no ice. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're not totally wrong there (though a bit of a defeatist attitude), but you know, Albanians aren't the "masters" of wikipedia. Almost all the naysayers are Albanian here. I'm pretty sure this edit war will have a solution if more neutral editors get involved (arbitration needed). It's not like it's a big deal. No one is disputing the main facts. The army movements and treaties. What I think we need to concentrate more on is not just the title, but also the actual text of the article which uses many weasel words and phrases and snide comments that are unnecessary and un-encyclopedic. Let's fix those first. Simanos (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying Simanos. Several efforts have been made to attract the interest of unaffected editors and none have wanted anything to do with it, it's been weeks now. As for Albanians "not being masters", it is very important to me that this experience does not cause us to fall out with each other. I hope for a times of continued cooperation and mutual respect between the users on each side of this divide line, and the values of the opposing faction must be considered valid by us because it is their bargaining tool when it comes to persuading others purpoted to be neutral. Evlekis (Евлекис) 02:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope I didn't offend anyone there. I know Greeks can be the same stubborn editors as our Albanian friends are being here, when it comes to some other articles. But it seems that Greeks aren't the masters of wikipedia either and RFC or arbitration solves the problems in other articles. I think this article is too obscure for many to take notice and participate. Simanos (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that there are two options, renaming or deleteing the article. Simanos introduced third option, to "clean" the text. I do not see how Simanos proposal to "clean" the text of the article from "many weasel words and phrases and snide comments that are unnecessary and un-encyclopedic" can solve the only serious problem: title of the article and subject of the text in the article that would correspond (now it is not the case) with such title actually never happened. Not only that it never happened, but can mislead readers of the article to think that this really happened and to affect their judgement in real life. I still think that there are only two options, renaming or deleting. I still propose to vote to rename it to "Establishment of [the] Albanian Principality" --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo occupation of Albania?

"In November, with the outbreak of the First Balkan War, the Albanians rose up and declared the creation of an independent Albania, which included all of what is now Albania and Kosovo"

I propose to delete this sentence because it can mislead readers to believe that today part of Albania is occupied by Kosovo.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's just reword into "modern Albania, Kosovo, Chameria, and parts of Western Macedonia". --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You can not reword text in order to match your point of view. If Albanian vilayet was declared independent by group of 40 people gathered in Valona and if that declaration on 28. Nov 1912 created Albania as state then significant part of that territory was occupied in 1912-1913 or is still ocuipied by:

1. Kingdom of Serbia and now Republic of Serbia
2. Kingdom of Montenegro and now Republic of Montenegro
3. Kingdom of Bulgaria
4. UNMIK of Kosovo, depending on the POV
5. FYR Macedonia
6. Kingdom of Greece and now Republic of Greece
7. Ottoman empire

I think that we should face main problem that is causing all this confusion. Real date of creation of Albania and its real territory. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: I think that this article should be deleted

Maybe it could help to read part of Treaty of London (1913) (signed on May 30. 1913!) that deal with region of Albania and says: "His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans and their Majesties the Allied Sovereigns declare that they remit to His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias the care of settling the delimitation of the frontiers of Albania and all other questions concerning Albania." [17]. Balcan allies and Ottoman empire accepted that Great powers should decide what will be polytical status and final frontiers of teritorry of Albania. This is sentence from the Treaty in which is obvious that Albanian vilayet that was declared as independent on 28. Nov 1912 did not existed as independent state and that the frontiers of Albania were still to be defined. It is impossible to occupy territory of country that does not exist and does not have territory with its frontiers. Only when Great forces (GB, Austria, France, Germany and Russia) based on this treaty created Principality of Albania and after that defined its frontiers Albania was created with its definitive borders. Therefore I believe that this article should be deleted because it is describing the occupation of territory which frontiers were not defined and therefore impossible to be occupied. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand a word of what you're saying. The Albanian Declaration of Independence was 28 November 1912. That's when Albania was created. Its borders were decided in London offices a year later, with no Albanian representatives to have a say. As a member of WikiProject Albania you should not have a problem with the dates of creation of the Albanian country [18], but I guess I'm wrong. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Sulmues. No you are not wrong. I really don't have problem with date of creation of the Albania. You do. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Antid: is really right here. However we can use an alternative path: rename it and fix it in order to avoid or.Alexikoua (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Alexikoua. What template message do you think should be placed on top of this article untill it is decided if it is going to be deleted or renamed?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A move request tag would be better. According to me a 'Albanian during the Balkan Wars' title is fine, but alternative proposals are welcomed.Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Where was the decision to move the article made?

The discussion is still open on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#More opinions needed. Was there a parallel discussion and subsequent decision made on another noticeboard or location? If so, shouldn't the discussion on the noticeboard be closed in some fashion before the move?

Also, I do not see an entry in the contested moves section of the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Is the person who made the move an administrator? The person who appears to have made the move, User:Villick, had participated in the debate and had voted so should know it would be contested which, while I may be naive in this matter, brings up a Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins concern. What protocol led to the move while at least one discussion was still open? I don't know why people are being asked to offer opinions in an "official" discussion when the decision has already been made.

If there is some Wiki policy that I am unaware of, please inform me. Veriss (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As I remember I made the move proposal [[19]] and initiated the discussion. I've opened a requested move, which was on the process disrupted by a number of editors that were sockpuppetting (fortunately this wasn't enough to create a chaos). Since the arguments (and the votes) by the one side are overwhelming there is no problem for the move. Fortunately Villik helped to solve this mess without making things any more hot.Alexikoua (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting back to the previous title. There was no decision to move it and Villick shouldn't have done such a move.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri: although there is a more than 2:1 majority in this case your still creating a chaos in this page. Please try to respect a long debated and finally established procedure. Also notice that not a single non-Balkan editor ever voted for the 'occupation' title, especially at the first vote.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin note -- Ok, the talk page and article are now at the same name, and the page is move-locked indefinitely at the current title. If you want it moved elsewhere, carry out the Requested move process again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Greek navy and ottoman army and gendarms controled Valona and Berat, not provisional government

"On the other hand the Albanian Declaration of Independence, at November 1912, and the formation of the provisional Government of Albanian managed to control only part of central Albania that period, including Vlorë and Berat."

Here you can find meomoirs of Ismail Qemali, who organized declaring of independence. At page 371 it is written that there were local Ottoman "gendarmes" that first chased him and then were instructed to honour him. Even Qemali on page 374 says that Ottoman army still control parts of territory that was declared to be independent. If somebody look at the map of occupied territories of Ottoman empire in FBW it is clear that it can be only Valona and Berat. On the same page (374) Qemali stress that after independence was declared, Greek navy blocked Valona port and fired guns bombing the Valona and keeping it cut from the rest of the world not been able to use even telegraph. Therefore, the above mentioned statement that people that declared independence "controled part of central Albania that includes Vlore and Berat" after they declared independence is not completely right, at least not untill ceasfire was signed in December. This is very important point, because if Qemali himself admit that he did not have control of territory that was declared as independent from Ottoman empire, readers could be misled by above mentioned text. Only after London peace treaty was signed in May 1913. Ottoman empire retreated fully from the Valona and Berat, not because Qemali and his government put it under control, but because London treaty was signed. Based on above mentioned I propose to delete above mentioned sentence. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be right on this. But feel free to make the appropriate corrections/additions (properly referenced).Alexikoua (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Antidiskrimator can you at least once get a proper reliable source that says what you want to add, without having to make or deductions about them?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I clearly wrote:"I propose to delete above mentioned sentence". I do not want to add anything. I proposed deletion based on Qemali memoairs. I know that he was not reliable and credible since he was so much involved in events. If he himself, admit that provisional government had no control, then it can be reliable source for deletion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Essad Pasha Toptani during the Balkan Wars

Resolved

"Albanian politician Esad Pashë Toptani collaborated with Serbian government during the occupation. He created a puppet state based in Durrës, called the Republic of Central Albania and fought against the Provisional Government of Albania."

Somebody made mistake with chronology in those two sentences because during the Balkan Wars Essad Pasha Toptani was most of the time (six months) fighting against Serbian and Montenegrin army during Siege of Shkoder which resulted with thousands Serbian and Montenegrin casualties and losses. Also, Republic of Central Albania was established in October 1913, which was after Balkan Wars.

Based on above explained mistake with chronology I propose to delete above two sentences.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

When did Army of the Kingdom of Serbia entered "Ottoman territory inhabited by ethnic Albanians"

Resolved

The Serb army first entered Ottoman territory inhabited by ethnic Albanians in November 1912 as part of its campaign in the then-ongoing First Balkan War.

The above sentence is incorrect and referenced source does not contain that information at all. Army of the Kingdom of Serbia started its operations and entered "Ottoman territory inhabited by ethnic Albanians" in October like it is written in below sentence extracted from the Battle of Kumanovo article.

"On 21 October the entire Third Army began its advance and on 22 October, without serious resistance, entered Priština".(Borislav Ratković, Mitar Đurišić, Savo Skoko, Srbija i Crna Gora u Balkanskim ratovima 1912-1913, Belgrade: BIGZ, 1972, pages 50-62.)

Therefore I will change the above mentioned incorrect sentence and add the correct referenced source for it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Before everything

what about population of Albania in 1912. Do you know that almost 50% of albanian population of that time wasnt of Shqip ethnic background? why we have all possible docuuments about national background of population in Greece, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Serbia in that time, and about Albania nothing?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.70.7 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Maybe you should know that expression "albanian" is not ethnic term, it is name for everey inhabitant of land of Alba(nia): Greeks, Shqipi, Serbs and Vlachis, obviously you dont. This is not politics, this should be enyclopedia!--109.245.70.7 (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC) In the end, in last census in Albania (in 2011 i think), over 560,000 was in line "people which doesnt want to say their ethnic background"!--109.245.70.7 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albania during the Balkan Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531131757/http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1913_1.html to http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1913_1.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.albanianhistory.net%2Ftexts20_1%2FAH1913_2.html&date=2011-02-11 to http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1913_2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)